April 07, 2006 | Editor’s Note: The Center for Responsive Politics initially issued this report on March 30 but discovered that an oversight in its research overstated the political contributions that Jack Abramoff’s clients made while he was their lobbyist. This revised report incorporates the corrected data, and the supporting tables have been revised as well. For more information, see CRP’s notice of the revision or contact [email protected]

What do magazine publishers, a railroad and Microsoft have in common with Indian tribes?

They were all clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the central figure in the corruption scandal unfolding in Washington. And during the time Abramoff represented them, they all made campaign contributions to members of Congress and President Bush.

When Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to corruption charges, some politicians rushed to dump what they saw as politically radioactive money from the high-flying lobbyist and the Indian tribes he admitted defrauding. By one Associated Press count, politicians promised to refund or donate to charity nearly $700,000. There was almost no mention at the time of Abramoff’s other clients and what the recipients planned to do with those clients’ contributions.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was an exception. Three weeks after Abramoff’s guilty plea, appearing on the Jan. 29 edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Frist declared, “Any money that’s come in from any client (of Abramoff) I’m going to give back immediately—give it back to the client, because I want to have no part of it.” Frist got $10,000 from Abramoff clients, but he has only singled out $2,000 to return—money his political action committee received from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe in Michigan.

What if Frist returned every dollar of what he called “Abramoff-tainted money”? And what if every member of Congress who received a contribution from Jack Abramoff or one of his clients did the same? How many lawmakers would be writing refund checks? How much money would disappear from their campaign war chests?

In short, a lot.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the time that Jack Abramoff was their lobbyist his clients contributed at least $5 million to members of Congress and their political action committees, to candidates for federal office and to political parties.

More than 300 members of the 109th Congress received campaign contributions from a client of Jack Abramoff while he was their lobbyist—81 Senators and 227 members of the House of Representatives, the Center found. On average, each recipient got about $16,000.

President Bush received nearly $50,000 from Abramoff’s clients. Top congressional recipients included a who’s who of the Republican leadership in Congress. Prominent names include House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois ($68,300 in contributions), House Republican Conference Secretary John Doolittle of California ($56,250) and Montana Sen. Conrad Burns ($52,340). Also on the list is former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas ($44,000), who once employed convicted Abramoff associates Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon on Capitol Hill. DeLay’s successor, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, received $30,500.

Unlike Abramoff himself, who along with his wife contributed $225,000 of their personal money to Republicans only, his clients were less partisan in their political contributions. While some gave almost exclusively to one party, on average they gave 73 percent of their money to Republicans and the remainder to Democrats.

The campaign contributions were in addition to what Abramoff’s clients paid him and the firms he worked for to lobby Congress and the executive branch. More than $50 million was spent on lobbying, according to the Center’s tally.

The non-partisan research organization had previously examined campaign contributions made by Abramoff, his wife, his associate Michael Scanlon, the Indian tribes the pair worked for and SunCruz Casinos, the offshore gambling outfit that Abramoff has admitted he acquired fraudulently. In all, those contributions amounted to $3.7 million, or approximately three-quarters of the total from all of Abramoff’s clients.

This latest, broader analysis using campaign finance and lobbying records examined all of Abramoff’s clients from 1998, when disclosure of lobbying became more transparent, through the end of 2004, when revelations of Abramoff’s activities effectively ended his career as one of Washington’s most influential lobbyists. In addition, this analysis comprises contributions from Tony Rudy, who has pleaded guilty to conspiring with Abramoff, and his wife, Lisa.

All of the contributions—including those from the Indian tribes—appear to be legal, which underscores the political nature of the recipients’ decisions to get rid of money from some donors but not others. The donations fall within the dollar limits of campaign finance law and were disclosed as required. Whether Abramoff directed his clients to make any of these contributions cannot be determined using Federal Election Commission campaign finance reports, the basis for the Center’s analysis. Lobbyists often advise their clients on how to distribute their political contributions—that’s not illegal either.

What becomes clearer through this review is how a single lobbyist’s reach can be wide if he represents politically generous clients. Campaign finance law limits how much individuals and political action committees can give to federal candidates. Since the individual “fat cat” donor is a thing of the past, raising smaller contributions from clients has become part of the job description for many lobbyists along Washington’s fabled K Street and has made well-connected lobbyists like Abramoff all the more influential.

“When a lobbyist tells a politician he can raise money for them, he’s saying he can do the legwork so his client can get the credit. In return, the lobbyist and his clients bank on the lawmaker listening to what they have to say, ” said Sheila Krumholz, CRP’s research director and acting executive director. “When you consider how many clients some lobbyists raise money for, you begin to see how someone like Jack Abramoff can become so powerful.”

Also more apparent from this analysis are the political calculations being made as the Abramoff scandal unfolds. Some politicians apparently determined that the Indian tribes’ money was tainted, but decided that contributions from other clients seeking to influence them were not. Most tainted of all, they determined, was money from Abramoff himself.

The crimes he has admitted to distinguish him from most lobbyists; bribing politicians and defrauding clients are not standard practices among the hired guns who try to influence public policy for their clients’ benefit. Likewise, most lobbyists don’t command millions of dollars in fees or own restaurants to entertain members of Congress. In many ways, though, Abramoff was a typical K Street lobbyist.

Like others in the field of government relations, he had his specialties. But he also represented a diverse group of clients—from smallish companies with narrow issues before Congress and federal agencies to large corporations, such as Microsoft, that seem on Capitol Hill to push their perspective on nearly every piece of legislation. On Abramoff’s client roster were a company that operates oil tankers, a developer of UPC bar codes, and, of course, numerous Indian tribes that operate, or were seeking to operate, casinos.

According to Senate records analyzed using CRP’s new Lobbying Database, Abramoff represented at least 41 clients from 1998 through 2004. The largest, by far, was Microsoft, which employed the firm of Preston, Gates & Ellis as a lobbyist—a law firm where Microsoft chairman Bill Gates’ father is a principal. During the time that Abramoff worked for Preston, Gates as a Microsoft lobbyist, political contributions associated with the software giant totaled nearly $400,000, accounting for 8% of contributions from all of Abramoff’s clients. Of all his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians contributed the most—nearly $1.3 million. Abramoff has admitted defrauding this tribe and others in a kickback scheme with Scanlon. Among the other larger contributors on his client list were the railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. (approximately $398,000 in donations), engineering and construction firm Fluor Corp. ($267,000) and mail-service provider Pitney Bowes Inc. ($145,000).

In addition to the Indian tribes, a number of Abramoff’s clients have become embroiled in the investigation of him and his associates:

• The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands routinely hosted congressional visitors Abramoff sent their way, including Tom DeLay and his family. The American protectorate paid for the tropical trips, but documents suggest Abramoff violated ethics rules for lobbyists by picking up at least some of the tab. In political contributions, his clients in the Marianas—the islands’ government and the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association—contributed $4,200 to politicians. They paid Abramoff and his associates $3.8 million to lobby, according to records. A hub of low-wage clothing manufacturing, the Marianas retained Abramoff to help them avoid federal wage and immigration standards.

• Abramoff reportedly directed Magazine Publishers of America, a trade association that made approximately $30,000 in contributions, and Internet lottery client eLottery to donate $25,000 each to a conservative advocacy group in Washington State. The money was then used to pay a consulting fee for Lisa Rudy, whose husband was a top aide to DeLay. Together, the two clients spent $1.7 million on lobbying.

• Abramoff lobbied for SunCruz Casinos before he bought the offshore gaming company. He admitted defrauding lenders by faking a wire transfer that inflated the apparent value of his investment, and has been sentenced to nearly six years in prison. SunCruz contributed $28,500 to politicians, including $4,000 to Rep. Bob Ney, of Ohio, who inserted a favorable mention of the company into the Congressional Record.

For many of Abramoff’s clients, he was just one lobbyist in their stable. Abramoff typically was registered among a team of lobbyists and received only a portion of the fees. Larger clients employed multiple lobbying firms, each with their own teams. Abramoff’s influence within a team cannot be gauged from disclosures filed with Congress, but he is listed as the lead lobbyist for a number of clients and reportedly played a significant role on nearly every account. For his smaller clients, especially the Indian tribes, it has been said that Abramoff was practically a one-man band.

By contrast, when Abramoff signed off with Preston, Gates to leave for the Greenberg, Traurig firm, Microsoft still retained 200 other lobbyists at various firms and in house. Through contributions from individuals associated with the company and through its political action committee, Microsoft has spread money throughout much of Congress and politics at large.

The list of lawmakers who received money from Abramoff and his clients comprises nearly 60% of the 109th Congress. After Senate Majority Leader Frist declared on “Meet the Press” that he would return all his “Abramoff-tainted money,” host Tim Russert asked whether every member of Congress should do the same.

Frist, whose office did not respond to CRP’s requests for additional comment, told Russert, “I’ll leave that to the members.” So far, holding on to millions of dollars from Abramoff’s clients, both he and other politicians appear to be following a different course.

CRP Research Director Sheila Krumholz and researchers Tim La Pira, David Reitz and Douglas Weber compiled and analyzed data used for this report.

Except for the Revolving Door section, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License by OpenSecrets.org. To request permission for commercial use, please contact us.